Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#201

Post by dv_dt » Mon, Mar 06, 2017, 2:39 AM UTC

NumberSix wrote: post #193

dv_dt wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This view really bothers me. The generally reported "unemployment" figure in the media does have the problems you mention. But the US Gov't through Bureau of Labor Statistics puts out all the numbers you say are being hidden. More numbers than a typical person has time to consume in it's entirety. They're just not termed "unemployment", it's labor participation rate or sometimes U-7: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/L…

This is the opening paragraph of the BLS press release on employment from Feb. 28, 2017. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/srgune.nr0.htm For release 10:00 a.m. (EST) Tuesday, February 28, 2017 USDL-17-0286 Technical information: (202) 691-6392 * lausinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/lau Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov REGIONAL AND STATE UNEMPLOYMENT -- 2016 ANNUAL AVERAGES Annual average unemployment rat…

It's a press release, not a data digestion guide. The data you want is in the second link I provided from the BLS. We should hold government to high standards, but in this area, the methodology is printed, and data is available.

There are some many areas (such as wiretaps and spying) where we could be pressing the hold the gov't to more transparency, or even discussing the actual problem of long term unemployment instead of casting aspersions on data manipulation which is straightforwardly accessible. I think the term "unemployment" simply does not mean exactly what you want it to mean. To move forward, one might need to coin a new catchier term in which to associate the problem for which you want greater awareness.

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#202

Post by awqrre » Mon, Mar 06, 2017, 3:35 AM UTC

NumberSix wrote: post #15

The explanation is that the government massages unemployment figures to make the economy look better than it is. The government has been doing this for decades, under Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. Unemployment is one of the most widely watched and therefor political numbers; anyone who is in power wants it to look as good as possible. One of the tactics to make the official unemployment rates…

The real unemployment rate, U-6 is probably closer to the truth: http://www.gallup.com/poll/189068/bls-unemployment-seasonall...

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#203

Post by pm90 » Mon, Mar 06, 2017, 3:59 AM UTC

throwaway729 wrote: post #176

pm90 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, a few generations ago, Men were OK with being in that kind of relationships. In fact, it was a culturally enforced value that the "Man should pay for everything" and it seemed to work fine. I agree with your premise that unequal incomes (especially if they are glaring) can be a significant barrier to relationships. But what if e.g. the woman makes enough for the both of them, and all she is looking for in a par…

> and it seemed to work fine It worked well unless you were a woman with ambitions outside of the kitchen and bedroom. In that case, it was living hell and maybe you'd get luck with a world war. Slavery worked fine too, unless you were a slave.

Please don't quote me out of context. "Everything" was not everything in society (out of context), but everything pertaining to the problem of beginning a relationship.

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#204

Post by rhapsodic » Mon, Mar 06, 2017, 4:53 AM UTC

J-dawg wrote: post #167

confounded wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The uncomfortable truth Which you've just fabricated on the spot based on some racial stereotypes (and your presumably very important feelings). The data reflect the same basic anti-black racism as the rest of society. https://theblog.okcupid.com/race-and-attraction-2009-2014-10...

I'm pretty sure the data supports what I said, even if I missed some of the nuance. Black women are more penalised than black men.

I think you're right. I don't have a reference handy, but I recall reading a long time ago that there are more educated, professional black women in the US than educated, professional black men, and it makes it difficult for them to marry someone at or above their level in those areas. And they have a lot of resentment against successful black men who marry white women, because that further exacerbates the imbalance.

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#205

Post by jaypaulynice » Mon, Mar 06, 2017, 4:57 AM UTC

I think it's the other way around...able men aren't looking for work because the job market isn't attractive. They must be doing something that satisfies them one way or another. I have a problem when people start pointing out that they must be junkies doing drugs and alcohol.

To think that a dysfunctional "job" is somehow superior means there is some kind of social agenda/engineering going on...blaming the people who are affected when it's clear that the problem is employers looking for cheaper outsourcing. What we have right now is social engineering and "thought leaders" trying to excuse the obvious.

I think it's extremely concerning to think someone who doesn't work isn't a productive member of society and to conclude that they're doing household chores. Many rich people who inherit their fortunes do not work, but no one says they are junkies etc...

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#206

Post by RandyRanderson » Mon, Mar 06, 2017, 5:18 AM UTC

Naed_force wrote: post #169

Frondo wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'd do is this: 1) Vote for politicians who are going to create real structural change in society, e.g. Bernie, not just systems maintainers like Hillary, or rich guys who want to rip us off, like the guy who won. (And really work at a local level to enact structural systems changes!) 2) Work to change the cultural baggage around one's value being tied to one's day job. Make it sexy to be a poet, writer, singer,…

>Vote for politicians who are going to create real structural change in society, e.g. Bernie, not just systems maintainers like Hillary, or rich guys who want to rip us off, like the guy who won. (And really work at a local level to enact structural systems changes!) Bernie Sanders 2011: American dream more apt to be realized in Venezuela where incomes are more equal https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/…

It could be that... or the crushing economic sanctions and the low price of oil.

I wonder which might have a higher economic impact?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Venezuel...

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#207

Post by klodolph » Mon, Mar 06, 2017, 6:39 AM UTC

pharrington wrote: post #187

klodolph wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A known effect of attacking (without confronting the core of the problem), or suppressing, or dismissing parties expressing certain beliefs or engaging in particular behaviors is that the opposing party reaffirms their actions or beliefs. Two-way intelligent and earnest discussion makes both sides amenable to the reasonable positions of the other. The downvotes are here not because people disagree with you, but bec…

Meta (since it's too late to edit my original reply): The sole fact that you commented compelled me to clarify my position and admit that I may indeed have misunderstood the original poster. That is why I am so insistent on actual discussion. My original reaction was, "these people aren't using their words to address mine? Clearly they can't even use their words, so they must be wrong and I must be right." Obviously…

It's a lazy Sunday, I'll reply to both here.

Downvotes are essential. Replying to a poor-quality comment wastes time and effort, downvoting means that other people won't read it.

> Obviously that reaction isn't rational in this case, but I don't really know what to do about it yet other than to always try to provoke earnest debate.

Consider that the reaction may not be rational in other cases. The appeal here is basically an emotionally-founded ultimatum, "Reply to me or else I won't change my opinion." That's how I interpreted it.

A core problem with earnest debate online is that comments are so often misinterpreted. Maybe I just misinterpreted yours! You can write defensively, but defensive writing is less clear. My writing on Stack Overflow, Hacker News, etc. is very defensive and it suffers for it, but I deal with fewer comments that misinterpret things. You can also interpret comments liberally. Consider, "You can't find women unless you have a job." Literally it means that unemployed men are incapable of getting girlfriends or wives. This is obviously false, so there's no point in replying to the literal interpretation here.

> I disagree with this fundamentally - my assertion is that the most reliable and broadly applicable way of attracting women is to be charismatic, and that charisma is a trainable skill.

Here are the problems I see with this series of comments:

The original comment did not make this claim, no matter how generously I read it. At best, that claim is a presupposition of the original comment. The difference betwen presuppositions and claims is critical for good discussion. It is cumbersome to reply to a statement when you disagree with a presupposition, which is why unjustified presuppositions are considered a type of informal fallacy.

The second problem is that the claim is not germane. The comment by jokoon claims that it is much more difficult for unemployed men to get a girlfriend, and saying that charisma is more important than employment status is tangential at best.

The third problem is that the reply to jokoon's comment is poor quality. The first four sentences seem like they were copied from the section headings of a random dating advice article. The advice is so obvious that the comment seems to carry the implication that jokoon must be a true idiot in order to need this advice.

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#208

Post by jelliclesfarm » Mon, Mar 06, 2017, 7:04 AM UTC

jokoon wrote: post #2

I've started some treatment recently, and for some reason I immediately started dating and looking for mates again. I quickly realized how difficult it is. You can't find women unless you have a job, while women have made outstanding progress in education and the workforce, and for some reason they have a hard time dating people who have a less comfortable situation than themselves. I don't want to ride the whole men…

Evolutionarily speaking here: Pregnancy and child rearing is expensive for females (of any species). Men have a far greater store of sperm than females who have limited eggs available during her reproductive time window.

This means that a male can father many more offsprings than a female can in her lifetime.

Even though monogamy..as a modern concept..is more prevalent, it is more often than not, serial monogamy.

But. Because. Evolutionary hardwiring.

Women want males to be providers because males can impregnate multiple females at the same time. Without being a bonded pair, or the resource costly job of raising offsprings would not be a shared endeavor. Bringing forth children takes a physical toll on a woman in more ways than one. It doesn't cost men anything other than ejaculation to create offspring. So women give birth. Men provide.

Of course, society has changed so much since cave men days, but our wiring probably hasn't..

Tying back to original topic...when women provide for themselves, what is the role of men? Perhaps our free floating relationship matrix without the need to be bonded pairs to bring forth offsprings is the reason.

Birds spend a lot of energy while flying..they have hollow bones and have a high metabolism. They expend a lot of energy just to exist. They migrate.

Mammals hibernate. They know how to conserve and regulate metabolism. Their energy needs are less expensive. Maybe that's why birds are monogamous and many mammals have harems.

As mammals, the human animal is already living within a moral but artificial construct of monogamy. Female apes share responsibilities to raise their young communally. Monogamy is an evolutionary disadvantage. It conserves energy and resources. It promotes kinship.

Human apes don't. Right or wrong, that's different. But we don't. If women can provide for themselves and have control over their reproductive freedoms, why do they need free range men anyways? The Y chromosome is supposedly composed of junk DNA.

This is bit of a ramble, but I would like to think it made at least some go 'a-ha'!

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#209

Post by FT_intern » Mon, Mar 06, 2017, 7:07 AM UTC

throwaway729 wrote: post #176

pm90 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, a few generations ago, Men were OK with being in that kind of relationships. In fact, it was a culturally enforced value that the "Man should pay for everything" and it seemed to work fine. I agree with your premise that unequal incomes (especially if they are glaring) can be a significant barrier to relationships. But what if e.g. the woman makes enough for the both of them, and all she is looking for in a par…

> and it seemed to work fine It worked well unless you were a woman with ambitions outside of the kitchen and bedroom. In that case, it was living hell and maybe you'd get luck with a world war. Slavery worked fine too, unless you were a slave.

> In that case, it was living hell

Not it wasn't living hell. Having professional goals was a luxury.

Living hell was participating in wars, working 12 hours a day in a coal mine, etc.

Experiences that mainly men had the pleasure to enjoy

Re: Men not at work: Why so many men aged 25 to 54 are not working (2016)

#210

Post by jokoon » Mon, Mar 06, 2017, 8:43 AM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #67

bobbytherobot wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One generation behind us, women still sort of relied on men, and now that the tables have turned, women might need to make a compromise. You mean the system was heavily stacked to make women reliant on men. I won't call that a compromise. The tables haven't turned, the game changed. We have drastically removed many of the forces meant to keep women as dependents of men. If the tables had turned, then men would be s…

Yes, this, a thousand times this. People look at stuff like alimony or whatever and think "oh women just get all the breaks". When really, stuff like that exists because women were expected to forego career for marriage, etc., essentially shackled to a man for life. Women being independent, expecting a guy to have his shit together? I think that's great. I say bring it on. Independent women are far more interesting t…

> Women aren't to blame for that, though.

I did not say that. But "expecting a guy to have his shit together? I think that's great." is not so great. If you start to put socio-economic criterias for a relationship, I don't think you really want a relationship.